Here's the thing about gerrymandering: You're screwing yourself in the long term, while making modest gains in the short term. It results in moderates being voted out in favor of extremists that may win one, maybe even two elections - and will then be voted out of office, as the "borderline safe" area you created for yourself leans away from the extremism in your party. In the meantime, you've given the other party (parties) a completely safe district; it would take major changes to move them back to your party.

They know their ideas are toxic to the majority of Americans, and that majority grows every time the Teabaggers and co. open their derp-holes. If not for gerrymandering, Republicans wouldn't have a majority in anything for at least a decade or two. Longer, if they don't drop the derp.

Exception Collection:Here's the thing about gerrymandering: You're screwing yourself in the long term, while making modest gains in the short term. It results in moderates being voted out in favor of extremists that may win one, maybe even two elections - and will then be voted out of office, as the "borderline safe" area you created for yourself leans away from the extremism in your party. In the meantime, you've given the other party (parties) a completely safe district; it would take major changes to move them back to your party.

You mean Republicans only care about the short term and can't/won't think about the long term effects of anything?

OK, while it's not the greatest of things to do, please don't everyone pretend this is a Republicans only problem. Both sides are just as guilty. Until Democrats can rightfully say they've redistricted fairly within a given area, I'm going to fail to see the partisan outrage.

LeoffDaGrate:OK, while it's not the greatest of things to do, please don't everyone pretend this is a Republicans only problem. Both sides are just as guilty. Until Democrats can rightfully say they've redistricted fairly within a given area, I'm going to fail to see the partisan outrage.

Exception Collection:Here's the thing about gerrymandering: You're screwing yourself in the long term, while making modest gains in the short term. It results in moderates being voted out in favor of extremists that may win one, maybe even two elections - and will then be voted out of office, as the "borderline safe" area you created for yourself leans away from the extremism in your party. In the meantime, you've given the other party (parties) a completely safe district; it would take major changes to move them back to your party.

But in the meantime, the American people suffer with more extreme people from both parties getting elected. Democrats are complicit in gerrymandering too, especially individual Representatives. They gladly cave on anti-gerrymandering state laws when they get gifted a 90% democratic district which they'll keep unchallenged indefinitely.

It's also ridiculous Democrats can actually win a majority of total House votes cast, and still have a significant minority in the House.

LeoffDaGrate:OK, while it's not the greatest of things to do, please don't everyone pretend this is a Republicans only problem. Both sides are just as guilty. Until Democrats can rightfully say they've redistricted fairly within a given area, I'm going to fail to see the partisan outrage.

Sadly, THIS.

I live in Maryland's 3rd district, one of the WORST Gerrymandered, and its been done by Democrats.

Pennsylvanians cast 83,000 more votes for Democratic U.S. House candidates than their Republican opponents, but elected a 13-5 Republican majority to represent them in Washington; Michiganders cast over 240,000 more votes for Democratic congressional candidates than Republicans, but still elected a 9-5 Republican delegation to Congress.

LeoffDaGrate:OK, while it's not the greatest of things to do, please don't everyone pretend this is a Republicans only problem. Both sides are just as guilty. Until Democrats can rightfully say they've redistricted fairly within a given area, I'm going to fail to see the partisan outrage.

I blame this solely on lazy democrat voters who didn't show up for the mid-terms and the imbecile "independents" who were apparently upset enough by Obama not fixing all our problems in two years that they were willing to throw it back to the group that created them in the first place.

Exception Collection:Here's the thing about gerrymandering: You're screwing yourself in the long term, while making modest gains in the short term. It results in moderates being voted out in favor of extremists that may win one, maybe even two elections - and will then be voted out of office, as the "borderline safe" area you created for yourself leans away from the extremism in your party. In the meantime, you've given the other party (parties) a completely safe district; it would take major changes to move them back to your party.

You should come to MA where they invented the thing. The Democrats have perfected it.

What I don't get is why places like OH and WI don't have impartial boards deciding restricting, like they do in CA. CA was able to get this done by referendum since neither the GOP nor the Dems wanted it, and IIRC both WI and OH have referendum governments also. Why don't they do this?

Supes:Exception Collection: Here's the thing about gerrymandering: You're screwing yourself in the long term, while making modest gains in the short term. It results in moderates being voted out in favor of extremists that may win one, maybe even two elections - and will then be voted out of office, as the "borderline safe" area you created for yourself leans away from the extremism in your party. In the meantime, you've given the other party (parties) a completely safe district; it would take major changes to move them back to your party.

But in the meantime, the American people suffer with more extreme people from both parties getting elected. Democrats are complicit in gerrymandering too, especially individual Representatives. They gladly cave on anti-gerrymandering state laws when they get gifted a 90% democratic district which they'll keep unchallenged indefinitely.

It's also ridiculous Democrats can actually win a majority of total House votes cast, and still have a significant minority in the House.

We really need wholly nonpartisan redistricting.

Agreed. Maybe something done by geographics; "each district shall be within 5% of the same population size, and shall be drawn to have no more than 6 corners not placed along rivers, mountains, or national parks" or something.

theorellior:That's why states should have independent redistricting boards.

I find it difficult to believe that you can't feed census information into a computer and have it spit out reasonable districts in a couple of hours (or less). The fact that redistricting can even be a partisan adventure speaks to a huge flaw in the system.

vernonFL:LeoffDaGrate: OK, while it's not the greatest of things to do, please don't everyone pretend this is a Republicans only problem. Both sides are just as guilty. Until Democrats can rightfully say they've redistricted fairly within a given area, I'm going to fail to see the partisan outrage.

Sadly, THIS.

I live in Maryland's 3rd district, one of the WORST Gerrymandered, and its been done by Democrats.

Blues_X:Pennsylvanians cast 83,000 more votes for Democratic U.S. House candidates than their Republican opponents, but elected a 13-5 Republican majority to represent them in Washington; Michiganders cast over 240,000 more votes for Democratic congressional candidates than Republicans, but still elected a 9-5 Republican delegation to Congress.

That's f*cking disgusting. And they brag about it.

Yeah but both sides are REALLY BAD though, don't you agree and furthermore comma

MichiganThe effectiveness of REDMAP is perhaps most clear in the state of Michigan. In 2010, the RSLC put $1 million into state legislative races, contributing to a GOP pick-up of 20 seats in the House and Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. Republican Rick Snyder won the gubernatorial race, and with it Republicans gained control of redrawing Michigan's 148 legislative and 14 congressional districts. The 2012 election was a huge success for Democrats at the statewide level in Michigan: voters elected a Democratic U.S. Senator by more than 20 points and reelected President Obama by almost 10 points. But Republicans at the state level maintained majorities in both chambers of the legislature and voters elected a 9-5 Republican majority to represent them in Congress.

LeoffDaGrate:OK, while it's not the greatest of things to do, please don't everyone pretend this is a Republicans only problem. Both sides are just as guilty. Until Democrats can rightfully say they've redistricted fairly within a given area, I'm going to fail to see the partisan outrage.

Is there a single state where the GOP won a majority of the popular vote but the Dems have the majority Congressional delegation due to redistricting? Maybe there is but I'm not aware of it.

randomjsa:As I live in North Carolina, a state that had its insane gerrymandering taken to federal court... twice. You'll pardon me if I laugh out loud.

What's a matter, don't like the gerrymandering now that it's not the Democrats in control of it? Ahhh, poor baby.

You know.. not everyone is a crazy hypocrite on this subject.

Most people would call be a libby lib lib, and I think leaving it to state legislatures is stupid. It doesn't matter what party is dominant at the time. Again... draw them by computer algorithm that makes the districts as square as possible.

Mercutio74:theorellior: That's why states should have independent redistricting boards.

I find it difficult to believe that you can't feed census information into a computer and have it spit out reasonable districts in a couple of hours (or less). The fact that redistricting can even be a partisan adventure speaks to a huge flaw in the system.

Question: Could a group challenge the districting in court?

Yes. It does happen, even with some success, but it's tough to do. The only challenges you can really bring are that a district was intentionally drawn to suppress minority representation.

Several states already have computer-drawn districting, and others have non-partisan committees handling it. I agree the computer approach is best, taking the human element out of it, but the problem is it sometimes ignores natural boundaries or community boundaries, where it actually makes sense to have one representative.

The worst are the "bipartisan redistricting committees" some states have adopted. They just maintain the status quo, and make a handful of safe Republican and safe Democrat districts. The healthiest thing for our country is to have competitive districts, and precious few are.

EyeballKid:LeoffDaGrate: OK, while it's not the greatest of things to do, please don't everyone pretend this is a Republicans only problem. Both sides are just as guilty. Until Democrats can rightfully say they've redistricted fairly within a given area, I'm going to fail to see the partisan outrage.

desertgeek:Maybe we should just say fark it and go to proportional representation in the House. Gerrymandering will continue to be a problem regardless of party under the current system.

Except the House is limited to 435 by Constitutional Amendment. Going back to direct proportions without removing that cap means CA and NY now have unbelievable clout in the House, while the entire Mountain West timezone gets like 3 Reps total.

I agree in principle, but we do need to cap the House at some number, and the facts simply are that the huge populations in CA/NY/TX relative to UT/WY/VT mean that the former three may have to live with the fact that the latter three will always outweigh them in terms of how much representation they get. People who live in populous areas will have to live with the fact that their vote counts less than a Utahn's.